Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)

Just an anecdote:

With Regional Rail frequencies, I'd be taking the Orange Line -> Regional Rail (to Auburndale) -> bike to destination, today.

The schedule is not aligned with my schedule, though. It's over an hour off, which is so unacceptable for a "service" in the urban core (which Newtonville and West Newton are, at least) during the afternoon of a regular weekday.

So, instead, I will be using a ride-share if it's cheap enough, or adding 40 minutes round trip with alternative public transit.

This is a microcosm of how poor frequencies push people into automobiles, add to congestion, and depress ridership, overall.
 
Many of the commuter rail lines in Boston have a strong anchor city at the end not just the Providence line. The Worcester Line, Lowell Line, Haverhill Line, and even the Newburyport/Rockport Line dense walkable cities at the terminus or key branch points.

Based on this I would recommend that if possible:
Providence: 15
Lowell: 15
Haverhill: 15
Worcester: 15
Fairmount: 15

Newburyport/Rockport: 15 to the split 30 on each branch
Franklin: 15 to Norwood 30 to the end of the line
Fitchburg: 15 to Waltham or Concord 30 to the end of the line

Old Colony: 30 if possible
Greenbush: 30 if possible

Needham: replace with green/orange line ASAP
 
Arlington said:
I'm all for greater frequencies , but Isn't there still a natural service area (essentially as proposed for in the "DMUs 2024" proposal) where "transit" trips are "a thing"?

Usually that ends up being the overlapping / synonymous region defined by:
1) About the 10-mile radius from the center
2) Where the Edge Cities are (Burlington, Waltham, Needham, Dedham, Quincy)
3) At the Beltway/Ring Road/128 park-and-rides

That doesn't mean that there won't be a "special case" / binary star kind of system where there ends up being 15-min service, as there is between "big" centers:

Boston & Providence
Baltimore & Washington
NYC & Stamford, White Plains, & Newark
Click to expand...

Yes, the "build it and they will come" mantra only works if there are enough people.

The presentation says Plimptonville gets 16 riders a day.

You can give the station an express train to Boston every 6 minutes and youd probably top out at 50 riders a day.

The point is, it is important to do a cost-benefit analysis. People love CR because it fills in a map. But theres a lot more value in investing elsewhere.
 
I think the truth is a mix of what you two are saying.

There are low-density stations that serve low-ridership and will never see huge ridership numbers regardless of frequency. Silver Hill comes to mind.

There are high-density stations that serve low-ridership due to excessive cost or poor frequencies. These stations would see a boom in ridership with appropriate costs and/or timetables. Belmont and Newtonville come to mind.

Look at the ridership numbers, but also look beyond the ridership numbers, to find the truth. Look at population and employment density, existing frequency, existing travel time and cost and their competitiveness with alternative modes of transportation.

Waverley has low ridership, in part because it is not cost and frequency competitive with the 73, for example.
 
bigeman312 said:
I think the truth is a mix of what you two are saying.

There are low-density stations that serve low-ridership and will never see huge ridership numbers regardless of frequency. Silver Hill comes to mind.

There are high-density stations that serve low-ridership due to excessive cost or poor frequencies. These stations would see a boom in ridership with appropriate costs and/or timetables. Belmont and Newtonville come to mind.

Look at the ridership numbers, but also look beyond the ridership numbers, to find the truth. Look at population and employment density, existing frequency, existing travel time and cost and their competitiveness with alternative modes of transportation.

Waverley has low ridership, in part because it is not cost and frequency competitive with the 73, for example.
Click to expand...

Right, and improving frequency is a low cost way to build ridership.

Dumping a few billion into a tunnel is not.
 
tysmith95 said:
It's probably why Seth Moulton is one of the biggest proponents of the NSRL. His district is probably the biggest beneficiary of a NSRL.
Click to expand...

Has Seth said one single solitary word about NSRL...or anything public transit related...in the last 18 months??? Ever since he got into PAC election fundraising and started fancying quixotic leadership challenges in the House he's gone stone-silent on nearly every single one of his district's transpo advocacies.

I think he's much much closer today to "part of the problem" than he ever was a useful ally. But he'll be getting a primary challenger in '18 so we'll see if he conveniently remembers that he once advocated for this stuff.
 
The Newburyport/Rockport corridor from Cheslea to Beverly Depot is very dense and could definitively support rapid transit service more so than the more far flung gateway cities like Worcester.
 
The terrible location of so many of the commuter rail stations really inhibits the ability to significantly increase ridership in many places as well.

Living in Brockton, we have 3 very well located stations from a walkability/population center standpoint. Many places do not. The proposed Taunton location sounds like they will continue this poor planning.

If you want to increase ridership, but only put your stations in places people are going to drive to get to, you're now advocating for big ol parking structures or lots everywhere. When TOD should be the goal, especially when it is beefing up an already populated area.

Again, Brockton would be great having more frequency due to the location of station, the lack of grade crossings (banned in the city), and a pretty sweet regional bus service. Many other places lack most of these things.

In my area, the Whitman station is very well located, while the Abington one is not. Holbrook/Randolph is a bad location, South Weymouth is a bad location. Parking at these locations fills fast, because they are not in population centers, and all users drive to them. Once the lots are full, you're driving to the next location.

My co-worker lives in Attleboro, and his lot is always full early, and he ends up working from home. Better than a car on the road, but screws us if he has meetings and I have to cover. And, that station isn't even in a bad location. It's a little south of the center of town. In these cases, the town is the failure by not building density around the station.

Some stations are always going to be in low density areas, just because the train is already going through, and a 5 or 10 mile gap between larger towns is too far away. These can be skipped on express trains, and not as big a deal with electrification either, as the speed up/slow down problem with diesels isn't there.

I'm not going to beat the dead horse of how the tunnel is still huge. It can happen after electrification since it can't happen before. But, yes frequencies can increase incredibly by electrifying only. However, the tunnel also reduces so much stress on the inner subway system as well. Does make so many other commutes possible without changing modes, and allows for even more frequncy with the added throughput and everything not being a turnaround.

It's not either/or. It's both ultimately, but that ultimate goal can be achieved in steps.
I want them both now, but would settle for electrification first with NSRL to follow. But, saying it's not or never needed would be poor decision making.
 
To add to your point, I wish there was something in 40B to encourage projects to be next to transit stops.

Many towns that the commuter rail goes through are staunchly anti development, so they need to be forced to build up at transit stops.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
If you want to increase ridership, but only put your stations in places people are going to drive to get to, you're now advocating for big ol parking structures or lots everywhere. When TOD should be the goal, especially when it is beefing up an already populated area.
Click to expand...

Big ol parking structures are fine if they are well accessible by major roads. Both TOD and park-n-ride are viable commuter rail station types for serving different areas. It is the hybrid/good-at-neither types that are the real losers.

My preference is for more TOD, but I'll settle for a few well located park-n-rides where appropriate.
 
jass said:
Right, and improving frequency is a low cost way to build ridership.

Dumping a few billion into a tunnel is not.
Click to expand...

Problem is, South Station is going to be basically full once SCR comes online. Maybe you could fit in some quick-turn-around Indigo; but that's about it.
 
jklo said:
Problem is, South Station is going to be basically full once SCR comes online. Maybe you could fit in some quick-turn-around Indigo; but that's about it.
Click to expand...

SCR is a mistake
 
Greenbush line was also a mistake (should have been killed when nimbys demanded a tunnel)
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Has Seth said one single solitary word about NSRL...or anything public transit related...in the last 18 months??? Ever since he got into PAC election fundraising and started fancying quixotic leadership challenges in the House he's gone stone-silent on nearly every single one of his district's transpo advocacies.

I think he's much much closer today to "part of the problem" than he ever was a useful ally. But he'll be getting a primary challenger in '18 so we'll see if he conveniently remembers that he once advocated for this stuff.
Click to expand...

He's been quite annoyingly silent for the last two years... I initially thought he was a big political ally for this whole thing, but turns out he's just another politician trying to climb the ladder as fast as he can. He could have stuck around the state, fighting staunchly for local issues, but nope. I'm over him.
 
jass said:
Yup. Master class in waste to please a couple of rail fans.
Click to expand...

You're right, but one of the reasons we looked at Scituate back in 2006 was the Greenbush line. I don't think we would have chosen the area if it didn't have rail service to Boston. (So, I guess I'm one of your two rail fans mentioned. :) ) Reading the report, the ridership numbers are up significantly, which is good.

The problem with Greenbush is HUGE parking lots in areas of towns that are not walkable villages, plus the less than stellar schedule and frequency. Why they don't have a station in downtown Hingham and downtown Cohasset boggles the mind when the train goes right through those villages and there used to be a stop.

At the end of the line in Greenbush, there are big plans to undo some of the damage and build a walkable mixed-use transit village on one of the HUGE parking lots that almost never is used. Since the train in 2007, there have been some minor successes with mixed use development around the Greenbush station. It takes a LONG time, but I'm confident the Greenbush area can be a really nice walkable destination someday with the Greenbush train station at the center of a village.
 
Arlington said:
Greenbush line was also a mistake (should have been killed when nimbys demanded a tunnel)
Click to expand...

Also for what it's worth, there are several transit oriented, mixed-use developments in Weymouth, Cohasset, and Scituate that I've been meaning to document someday with a photo essay. Hopefully, this summer! Density along the line has been increasing as much as the towns will allow. Scituate just voted yes at Town Meeting on a major zoning effort to organize the outdated zoning around Greenbush. It established several sub-districts and transit oriented, walkable villages with excellent design standards and fairly good density. The problem with Scituate right now is infrastructure. Our water and sewer can't handle much more without major upgrades and that costs money.
 
The nice thing about parking lots is that they’re about the easiest thing to tear up and build over. Yes, someone will fight it, but far less than if you dare to impede the sunlight on the house that the cousin of Sam Adams’ barber gree up in.
 
Java King said:
You're right, but one of the reasons we looked at Scituate back in 2006 was the Greenbush line. I don't think we would have chosen the area if it didn't have rail service to Boston. (So, I guess I'm one of your two rail fans mentioned. :) ) Reading the report, the ridership numbers are up significantly, which is good.

The problem with Greenbush is HUGE parking lots in areas of towns that are not walkable villages, plus the less than stellar schedule and frequency. Why they don't have a station in downtown Hingham and downtown Cohasset boggles the mind when the train goes right through those villages and there used to be a stop.

At the end of the line in Greenbush, there are big plans to undo some of the damage and build a walkable mixed-use transit village on one of the HUGE parking lots that almost never is used. Since the train in 2007, there have been some minor successes with mixed use development around the Greenbush station. It takes a LONG time, but I'm confident the Greenbush area can be a really nice walkable destination someday with the Greenbush train station at the center of a village.
Click to expand...

Agree completely with all of this and thanks for the perspective. This is the kind of effort the region needs to ease the run up of housing prices. Its the same argument in favor of SCR which is you need to give people options to commute into the city from a cheaper place. The city needs an ever growing accessible workforce, and the residents need an option to live in a lower cost area. Win/Win as far as I'm concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top